Commonwealth v. "Slim" E. Ball

The Commonwealth of Virginia enacted death penalty legislation in 1993 providing for hanging of all persons convicted of capital offenses. The statute is the result of public outrage concerning crime, and the legislature has aptly named the new law "Hanging is Too Good for Them." A death row inmate, sentenced under the statute, has challenged its constitutionality. His crime was the senseless murder of a mother and her two young daughters outside a 7-11 convenience store. His only response upon being taken into custody was "They took the last Moonpies in the place and wouldn't share. They had it coming!" Mr. Ball, who is 5'5"in height, weighed 150 pounds at sentencing in 1994. He immediately went on a binge diet of Twinkies, and he currently tips the scales at just over 400 pounds (and counting). His argument is that, because of his excessive weight, he will likely be decapitated by the procedure. The state's response is "So What! What difference does it make how the slimeball dies. The only important thing here is that the death sentence is carried out. There is no difference between death by hanging and death by beheading." In a divided opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, en banc, ruled for Mr. Ball. The State appealed, and the U.S. Supreme Court quickly granted a writ of certiorari. Oral arguments were heard last week, and now you must decide.

You are the proud owner of a cat that has a special gift. Ariana can speak. Naturally, you wish to share this miracle with the world and make a few bucks in the process. So, you print up a few signs, rent an assembly hall, and charge admission to those who come to hear Ariana talk. The College Park authorities are not pleased, however, because you have failed to purchase a business licence. When you prepare for a second night's presentation, the local police show up at the meeting hall, nix your planned activities, and slap you with a fine for violating the local ordinance. You want to challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance because it says nothing about talking animals, so you conduct a search of the case law. Are there any precedents on the issue? If so, explain their relevance to your situation. Not wanting to leave any stone unturned, you also explore the question of whether the constitution protects Ariana's freedom of speech. Does it?

(Hint: You should find two case opinions that are relevant to your problem -- one issued by a US District Court, the other by a Circuit Court of Appeals. If so, be sure to distinguish them.)